As the published material for CPS indicates, and is available to the general public, a fair and professional investigation will be performed by CPS when accusations are made. In reality, the investigation is anything but fair; especially when the accused is the father. Normally the intent of the investigation is to find abuse not the truth. Even if abuse can’t be found, it doesn’t matter; the case will proceed. At this point I will introduce the reader to an initial interview conducted by ex-CPS worker Benjamin Smith of Loudoun CPS (far right photo above). The interview is edited to protect the innocent. It is clear that Smith is only interested in coercing a confession not discerning the truth. Smith is curiously enough no longer with the local agency; the official word is that he resigned to pursue other opportunities. The local agency covered for Smith until the very end.
During the interview segment, Smith attempts to negotiate with the accused to confess and then plays the ultimate card; if you don’t confess “it will be hard for you to see your daughter”. Keep in mind this is the first interview. The irony only escalates once the reader realizes that Smith is the investigator who is assigned to verify the validity of the accusation. The investigator, who is attempting to coerce a confession in the first meeting, is tasked with investigating the accusation. Does the reader have any question as to what Smith decided on the validity of the accusation? The status of an investigation comes to down to the poorly trained and very biased opinion of a social worker. I should add a Social Worker who is encouraged, or at least supported in his lying by the management team. It is critical to be aware that Benjamin Smith or any other social worker are not trained in any proper investigative techniques. In this particular case Smith took a hostile stance from the beginning. Social workers are not experts; do not let Sandra Glenney present them as experts on the stand.
In this particular case, it was learned that Benjamin Smith had difficulty telling the truth. In the attached document, Smith states that the interview with the accused was not taped. After nine months the tape mysteriously surfaced to the chagrin of Smith and the local agency. Due to the delay in receiving the tape, the accused was never able to present Smith’s threat to the Court. Sadly, the management took no action to reprimand Smith , instead Smith was the recipient of an award. The agency has extremely low standards. Smith along with the ever vigilant Sandra Glenney, withheld DNA evidence as well for nine months.
The local agency and the social worker will, for lack of a better word, lie and lie often. In the case of Smith, Laurie Warhol, Sandra Glenney and Ellen Grunewald were all told about him and did nothing to take action. This speaks of the lack of character of the local agency and the upper management. The local agency needs a thorough audit by an independent organization. Smith is not a one-off scenario; the whole agency has severe issues.
In closing, do not expect an independent and truthful audit from the State Board, they will claim lack of jurisdiction over the local agency. The local agency has issues , severe issues. This may arise from a lack of proper training or proper leadership. For some reason, the State Board exercises no control over the local agency.
An attorney who is representing the accused must be aware that this agency is corrupt. There is not other word to describe it. The leadership is atrocious, guilt is assumed and hiding evidence is part of the status quo.